How can you discern between the natural and the supernatural?

[variant]

Did you want to keep discussing this with me for some reason ? I am willing to politely stop, as I'm also kind of losing interest at this point in these aspects of the discussion anyways. If you wanted to keep going however, I suppose I will.

It's odd that you find the termination of a discussion you weren't willing to entertain in the first place that interesting.

 

[TillICollapse]

I agree that most (if not all) "supernatural" events are wrongly attributed, and are simply natural.

But that does not render the idea of the supernatural into nonsense. And IF there is genuine supernatural interference in our natural world, nothing youve described renders the idea: that a supernatural event could have natural effect, into illogic.

Mis-attribution of natural events onto supernatural causes was not the initial complaint in this thread.

That's not exactly what I was saying ... here lemme give an example ...

Let's say suddenly I managed to disappear from where I'm sitting, and reappear somewhere 200 miles from here, where it can be well documented what happened to me ... and that when I reappear, all these "ghost" like beings start appearing, claiming to be "spirit beings", they claim that the spiritual world is real, they perform healing miracles, they cause soil to somehow form into a fully functioning human being before our very eyes, they have wings and glowing rings of light around them, etc. They also flash back and forth before us in a strange manner due to their nature, I mean ... just full blown extraordinary events. Let's say they even claim some religion on earth had it right the whole time, etc. They may even produce dead relatives that people recognize, famous people, who appear in a new form, having transcended their previous state into a new one ...

Let's say all of that happens, what I'm saying is that the term "supernatural" and it's definition as I understand it, basically doesn't give place for any of that to happen in our natural world and actually have an effect or even occur as an event. That is a better way to phrase it. The term "supernatural" and it's definition, the way I understand it, is self contradicting IF we apply it to events that take place within the natural world. So to say a cause is supernatural, the effect is natural ... I don't see how that follows. Why make that jump ? How could one objectively show that all of those events are not subject to the physics in our universe, when we *don't understand all the principles of physics within our universe * thus couldn't it simply be an issue of us not understanding the principles yet ? I don't have an issue with the "events" that often get attributed to "supernatural" or the possibility of something happening, it's the term itself and way it's applied which seems contradictory. The way I read it, is for something to be supernatural, it CANNOT have a natural effect. Otherwise, it's not supernatural. Regardless of how incredible or amazing or baffling it is. "Supernatural" things are fine, so long as they don't become natural. Once they have a natural effect, in any capacity, how are they still "supernatural" ? Even if their origin was somehow of such a nature that they were in fact existing in a manner which wasn't subject to ANY principle of physics in our known universe, then the issue of causality comes into play and our place in it, etc and so forth.

Hope this explains it better ... but as I said to one other poster, I'm losing interest somewhat (since it's just kind of going round and round now also) so if you'd like to chill on the posting with me as well, that's cool too.

 

[TillICollapse]

It's odd that you find the termination of a discussion you weren't willing to entertain in the first place that interesting.

There's something about the grammar of this sentence, I don't totally get what you're trying to say.

The last couple of posts however, you've made assumptions about what I was willing to entertain, or would like or not like concerning things. I'm not a fan of straw man building, or paralipsis type ad homs, etc ... I would not have expected you to even hint at going in those directions, actually. I tend to not even engage discussion with people whom I think are going to exhibit that type of behavior. So I hope you're not going in that direction, because I didn't expect that from you tbh ... I've read some of your previous posts in other threads, and assumed from what I remember reading that you would likely not go in those directions ... that's why I engaged you in the first place, because I hoped we could explore a few things you had said without those types of things. When I begin to see them, I rarely even address those types of comments.

It's pretty normal behavior for people to begin to lose interest in things and stop talking about them. If they gain interest again they may come back, or they may not. I thought you explained your statements fairly clearly overall, I finally saw what I thought I was trying to put my finger on ... you said yourself you didn't see the point in more lengthy discussion or something to that effect ... so I'm cool with stopping at this point. If you really want to keep talking about it with me, why ? And it's fine if you don't respond to this thread also, I'm cool.

ETA: Your post signature is one of my favorite on the forum, btw.

 

[variant]

There's something about the grammar of this sentence, I don't totally get what you're trying to say.

Try reading it as if someone were speaking to you, because it makes perfect sense to me when I do that.

The last couple of posts however, you've made assumptions about what I was willing to entertain, or would like or not like concerning things.

You talk an awful lot, so your core assumptions are not difficult to suss out.

I have not misinterpreted or misrepresented your posts in the least.

I'm not a fan of straw man building, or paralipsis type ad homs, etc ... I would not have expected you to even hint at going in those directions, actually. I tend to not even engage discussion with people whom I think are going to exhibit that type of behavior. So I hope you're not going in that direction, because I didn't expect that from you tbh ... I've read some of your previous posts in other threads, and assumed from what I remember reading that you would likely not go in those directions ... that's why I engaged you in the first place, because I hoped we could explore a few things you had said without those types of things. When I begin to see them, I rarely even address those types of comments.

My intention is not to misunderstand you, In fact quite the opposite.

It's pretty normal behavior for people to begin to lose interest in things and stop talking about them. If they gain interest again they may come back, or they may not. I thought you explained your statements fairly clearly overall, I finally saw what I thought I was trying to put my finger on ... you said yourself you didn't see the point in more lengthy discussion or something to that effect ... so I'm cool with stopping at this point. If you really want to keep talking about it with me, why ? And it's fine if you don't respond to this thread also, I'm cool.

You've been trying to "figure out" why we are talking past one another, and "losing interest" and also very unwilling to question any of your assumptions, so I do know why we are talking past one another and have said as much.

ETA: Your post signature is one of my favorite on the forum, btw.

Thank you.

 

[TillICollapse]

I have not misinterpreted or misrepresented your posts in the least.

Yes you have, such as here:

... and also very unwilling to question any of your assumptions ...

If you are going to start claiming things about me which are not factual, then we really have nothing left to discuss. I don't dig on manipulation.

 

[variant]

Yes you have, such as here:

If you are going to start claiming things about me which are not factual, then we really have nothing left to discuss. I don't dig on manipulation.

No you just wish to assume that all things that happen in the universe are natural. And, as far as you assume that there is no discussion to be had here.

Here is the argument in logical terms:

P1 All things that interact with the natural are natural
P2 We can only view things via their interaction with the natural
C We can either then only ever see the supernatural if it is natural so the supernatural is either undefined or natural.

So what is the problem?

P1 is entirely questionable.

It's your assumption though so I don't feel the need to respect it.

 

[Kylie]

"can interact with" and " is a part of" seem to be different ideas to me.

You simply seem to think touching the natural universe makes you an integral part of it, or that it would make something inherently "natural".

I don't think this is necessarily true.

How can the supernatural affect the natural if they do not have at least something in common?

 

[Kylie]

You havent measured the supernatural. What you described is measuring its effect on the natural world.

And when we measure the strength of the wind, are we actually measuring the amount that each air molecule moves, or are we measuring the wind's effect on a spinning propeller?

I have no example of supernatural interference to offer. As far as I know, there are none. But I'm not sure.

But shouldn't that indicate something to you? Given that there is no reliable evidence of the supernatural, why do you consider it still a possibility? There's no evidence for magical shoe elves either. Do you consider that they might be real?

 

[variant]

How can the supernatural affect the natural if they do not have at least something in common?

Who said they wouldn't?

Having the ability to interact does not necessarily make things fundamentally the same kind of thing it means they have the ability to interact.

 

[Neogaia777]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

One day, what we now call supernatural, may one day turn out to be very logical and reasonable naturally, an advanced society Obviously considered what we consider to be magic, are just done by a highly advanced technological source.

 

[durangodawood]

And when we measure the strength of the wind, are we actually measuring the amount that each air molecule moves, or are we measuring the wind's effect on a spinning propeller?



But shouldn't that indicate something to you? Given that there is no reliable evidence of the supernatural, why do you consider it still a possibility? There's no evidence for magical shoe elves either. Do you consider that they might be real?

With the wind we measure a material effect of a material cause. Not sure the relevance to this discussion.

I consider the supernatural a possibility because of stories from people I trust. But, of course, I'm completely open to the possibility they are deluded in some way.

I also consider it possible that the supernatural is just a realm of the natural thats currently so far beyond our grasp that it feels categorically different.

 

[durangodawood]

That's not exactly what I was saying ... here lemme give an example ...

Let's say suddenly I managed to disappear from where I'm sitting, and reappear somewhere 200 miles from here, where it can be well documented what happened to me ... and that when I reappear, all these "ghost" like beings start appearing, claiming to be "spirit beings", they claim that the spiritual world is real, they perform healing miracles, they cause soil to somehow form into a fully functioning human being before our very eyes, they have wings and glowing rings of light around them, etc. They also flash back and forth before us in a strange manner due to their nature, I mean ... just full blown extraordinary events. Let's say they even claim some religion on earth had it right the whole time, etc. They may even produce dead relatives that people recognize, famous people, who appear in a new form, having transcended their previous state into a new one ...

Let's say all of that happens, what I'm saying is that the term "supernatural" and it's definition as I understand it, basically doesn't give place for any of that to happen in our natural world and actually have an effect or even occur as an event. That is a better way to phrase it. The term "supernatural" and it's definition, the way I understand it, is self contradicting IF we apply it to events that take place within the natural world. So to say a cause is supernatural, the effect is natural ... I don't see how that follows. Why make that jump ? How could one objectively show that all of those events are not subject to the physics in our universe, when we *don't understand all the principles of physics within our universe * thus couldn't it simply be an issue of us not understanding the principles yet ? I don't have an issue with the "events" that often get attributed to "supernatural" or the possibility of something happening, it's the term itself and way it's applied which seems contradictory. The way I read it, is for something to be supernatural, it CANNOT have a natural effect. Otherwise, it's not supernatural. Regardless of how incredible or amazing or baffling it is. "Supernatural" things are fine, so long as they don't become natural. Once they have a natural effect, in any capacity, how are they still "supernatural" ? Even if their origin was somehow of such a nature that they were in fact existing in a manner which wasn't subject to ANY principle of physics in our known universe, then the issue of causality comes into play and our place in it, etc and so forth.

Hope this explains it better ... but as I said to one other poster, I'm losing interest somewhat (since it's just kind of going round and round now also) so if you'd like to chill on the posting with me as well, that's cool too.

A couple things:

1. I'm ok with the supernatural being mysterious to us. In fact, I would expect it NOT to make sense to minds utterly conditioned to material reality.

2. Why make the jump from supernatural cause to material effect? Well, I would only make that jump if thats what actually happened. But, as I mentioned, I'm very skeptical about claims of supernatural 'interference' in the material world.

 

[Kylie]

Who said they wouldn't?

Having the ability to interact does not necessarily make things fundamentally the same kind of thing it means they have the ability to interact.

Then the two can't be completely separate then, and the supernatural can be measured in some way.

So please explain how this can be done. SHow me something supernatural and explain how we can measure it. ANy supernatural thing you want.

 

[TillICollapse]

A couple things:

1. I'm ok with the supernatural being mysterious to us. In fact, I would expect it NOT to make sense to minds utterly conditioned to material reality.

2. Why make the jump from supernatural cause to material effect? Well, I would only make that jump if thats what actually happened. But, as I mentioned, I'm very skeptical about claims of supernatural 'interference' in the material world.

Assuming you're using the term "supernatural" to describe "mysterious" events ...

HOW could one ever objectively show something exists without being subject to principles of physics in the natural universe ? Once you've found such a thing, how could you KNOW ? You may guess, but how could you objectively and conclusively know ? What is it being compared to that does fit that description ?

ETA: I'm more inclined to agree with something along the lines of this statement here: "I also consider it possible that the supernatural is just a realm of the natural thats currently so far beyond our grasp that it feels categorically different."

 

[Kylie]

With the wind we measure a material effect of a material cause. Not sure the relevance to this discussion.

The point is that if something can have an effect on something else, then they must have something in common. And since everything about something natural is, well, NATURAL, then anything SUPERnatural must also have some natural part as well, and we can measure it.

I consider the supernatural a possibility because of stories from people I trust. But, of course, I'm completely open to the possibility they are deluded in some way.

Stories and eyewitness accounts are notoriously UNreliable.

I also consider it possible that the supernatural is just a realm of the natural thats currently so far beyond our grasp that it feels categorically different.

But if that is the case, then it is still natural and still measurable and explainable by natural laws.

 

[TillICollapse]

No you just wish to assume that all things that happen in the universe are natural. And, as far as you assume that there is no discussion to be had here.

Dude, if you keep with the irritating "You just wish to assume" stuff, I'll stop. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt you're capable of more than ad hom crap.

Here is the argument in logical terms:

P1 All things that interact with the natural are natural
P2 We can only view things via their interaction with the natural
C We can either then only ever see the supernatural if it is natural so the supernatural is either undefined or natural.

So what is the problem?

P1 is entirely questionable.

It's your assumption though so I don't feel the need to respect it.

It's not my assumption, it's your incorrect assumption of my position. Projecting straw men suck too.

I agree that P1 is questionable, mainly because of the way you've phrased it. In fact I would rephrase most of it thusly:

P1 Things that interact with the natural, are then essentially indistinguishable from the natural at those points.
P2 Things can be observed or experienced as events once they interact within the natural.
I would drop C all together, and state the following:

The supernatural can exist in theory, and can perhaps even be known conceptually ... however to interact with it, or have it interact within our universe, by definition the term "supernatural" is no longer sufficient, and it becomes unnecessary and misleading.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

How can you discern between the natural and supernatural? Once a supernatural thing occurs within our physical world, it is no longer beyond the laws of the physical world and would therefore be part of the natural world.

We we recently in our family had a supernatural event. One of our relatives in China contracted a disease that was incurable, or al leat most people die from. We were praying in Australia for her as a family as I prayed I felt a really strong sense that all the family members would be saved. But what happened was that she got worse and worse, to the pont she entered a coma state. The doctors gave up on her and told the father of the woman to call together all the family members for a funeral. All the family (in China) was flown into the city. The father of the girl did not give up praying, as he was praying he felt a strong impression that she had been healed. So he asked the doctor to let him in to see her. When the doctor went in she had been completely healed. She came out of the coma, she has left the hospital. on seeing this all the family members who came for the funeral gave their lives to Jesus.

 

[Kylie]

We we recently in our family had a supernatural event. One of our relatives in China contracted a disease that was incurable, or al leat most people die from. We were praying in Australia for her as a family as I prayed I felt a really strong sense that all the family members would be saved. But what happened was that she got worse and worse, to the pont she entered a coma state. The doctors gave up on her and told the father of the woman to call together all the family members for a funeral. All the family (in China) was flown into the city. The father of the girl did not give up praying, as he was praying he felt a strong impression that she had been healed. So he asked the doctor to let him in to see her. When the doctor went in she had been completely healed. She came out of the coma, she has left the hospital. on seeing this all the family members who came for the funeral gave their lives to Jesus.

Do you know enough about medical science to make the claim that there was absolutely no hope for her by naturalistic methods? That supernatural intervention was the only possible way she could have been cured?

 

[durangodawood]

The point is that if something can have an effect on something else, then they must have something in common. And since everything about something natural is, well, NATURAL, then anything SUPERnatural must also have some natural part as well, and we can measure it.....

You infer that from a lifetime of observing natural events. But you dont KNOW that it holds true for the supernatural and its effects.

Basically: you are trying to make sense where we cannot be sure there is any... Or not the sort of sense we're accustomed to.

 

[variant]

Dude, if you keep with the irritating "You just wish to assume" stuff, I'll stop. I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt you're capable of more than ad hom crap.

You mean after you write long posts to me that rely on an assumption and I point it out you get mad.

P1 Things that interact with the natural, are then essentially indistinguishable from the natural at those points.
P2 Things can be observed or experienced as events once they interact within the natural.
I would drop C all together, and state the following:

The supernatural can exist in theory, and can perhaps even be known conceptually ... however to interact with it, or have it interact within our universe, by definition the term "supernatural" is no longer sufficient, and it becomes unnecessary and misleading.

There isn't any person I know that believes there are supernatural occurrences, that also thinks they do not interact with the natural universe. So, I don't think I am the one the one who is misrepresenting what other people mean by things.

I do not agree that merely interacting with the natural universe would make the supernatural and natural indistinguishable as per the discussion I've already had on that issue of what I think the evidence would look like.